Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:27:54 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:21:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:19:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:08:16 -0600
> > > Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > It seems very strange to me to document the API with the implementation
> > > > rather than with the declaration.  It's almost as if we expect people to
> > > > have to read the implementation to figure out how stuff works.
> > > 
> > > That approach makes sense for C++.  But for C, the code is .c-centric.
> > 
> > I've never programmed in C++ ... I just expect to find API documentation
> > in header files.
> > 
> > > That's particularly the case with the kernel, where we explicitly work to
> > > make the .c files the things which people look at, while not caring about
> > > the .h files.  Look at how much we say "get that ifdef out of there and
> > > hide it in the header file".
> > 
> > I see that as being "move the complexity around" and "get the interfaces
> > right", not "hide it in the header files where nobody ever looks".
> > 
> > > > How about a note in semaphore.c that says "refer to semaphore.h for
> > > > usage information"?
> > > 
> > > No, please document it in the C file, where people expect to find it.
> > 
> > Fine, I've done it the other way round.
> > 
> > Please review this doc-patch.  Without comments, I'll commit it to the
> > semaphore git tree tomorrow.
> 
> Looks good to me.  Thanks.

Yup, most excellent.

btw, down() and friends should have might_sleep() checks in them, shouldn't
they?  They don't seem to be in there, nor in mainline
lib/semaphore-sleepers.c.  Confused.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/